Laserfiche WebLink
' NII�JTlES O�'+''g'�E <br /> O1�OI�TO CITY CO�JN�IF.,1l�iE�TING <br /> lO�Ionciay,September 25,2006 . <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (6. #06-3212 HEMI'EL PROPERTI'ES, OU7ZOTA STON��AY(NW CORN�'R OF 1�XZL0i�� <br /> DIIVENORTH�NI3.FIIGHT��4F'X2), Co�ttiratced) � <br /> Gaffron stated under the current Comprehensive Plan,the retail element must consist of a phannacy, and <br /> if that element were removed,it would be up to the Council to determine what retail would be appropriate <br /> for this site. <br /> Murphy indicated he would not be in favor of cl�anging the comprehensive plan amendment. <br /> Josh Kerzuack inquired whether they would be allowed to proceed forward with a phannacy if the <br /> Couiicil votes not to change the Comprehensive Plan tonight. <br /> Brokl stated they could construct a pharmacy on the site but they would need to go through the Planned <br /> Unit Development process. . <br /> � Sansevere commented he does not want to be force-fed any particular development. <br /> Kerznack commented it�feels that they have not niade any progress on this ap�lication and that they are <br /> not interested in constructing a phaimacy at this site, Kerznack stated tliey are requesting that tlle <br /> pharmacy component be eliminated froin the conlprehensive plan. . <br /> �Muiphy stated if the compreherisive plan is not changed,the City would go back to square one on tlus <br /> application, and that he does not want to mislead the parties that he would approve retail on this site. <br /> Kerznack stated he understands they would need to go through the Planned Unit Developinent process if <br /> the comprehensive plan is changed. , <br /> Sansevere stated from his understanding of the last Council rneeting,the biggest concern was the amount <br /> of retail and tlie uses. Sansevere stated the City is not in need of additional retail at this time. , <br /> Kerz�lacic pointed out at some point the com�rehensive pl�an would need to Ue changed and that they are <br /> simply requesting the Council approve the removal of the requirement of a pharmacy for this site. <br /> - McMillan stated in her opinion the Council was probably mistaken when they rewrote the comprehensive � <br /> � .plan to require a pharmacy on this site but that she does not want to be changing the comprehensive plan � <br /> every time a developer approaches the Ciiy about developing this site. <br /> Gaffron stated if the com�rehensive plan is not amended at this time, any developnient of tlie site would <br /> need to include a phanmacy on this site. Gaffron stated if the pharmacy is eliminated, it would allow a <br /> developer to come before the City with a p1an siinilar to what is being�roposed�tonight by the a�plicants. <br /> Gaffron noted this pro�erty is cuirently zoned RR-1B and that the prior rezoning is not valid and is now <br /> . void because the previous pro�osed devclopmcnt on this site never accuiTed. Gaffron stated a list of uses <br /> could be included in the rezoning ap�lication. <br /> Brokl indicated ihe big�icture is that there was a two-piece deal previously and that the half that is left <br /> does not work on its own and is in conflict with the City.'s zoning for this area, Brold stated residential <br /> homes could be constructed on this site,which may not be what the a�plicants are interested in. <br /> ' PAGIE 4 of 14 <br />